Cimontubo - Tubagens E Soldadura, LDA v. Petroleos De Venezuela, S.A.
- George Daniels
- 1:20-cv-05382
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Cimontubo v. Petroleos, Judge Daniels entered final judgment awarding $45.4 million plus interest, attorney’s fees, and costs.
Cimontubo received a final judgment for principal, prejudgment interest, attorney’s fees, and costs. Petroleos De Venezuela, S.A. and PDVSA Petroleo, S.A. were ordered to pay those amounts.
What happened
Cimontubo - Tubagens E Soldadura, LDA v. Petroleos De Venezuela, S.A. concerns Cimontubo’s claim that the defendants failed to pay a promissory note and related agreement. The court had previously granted Cimontubo summary judgment, and the matter was sent to a magistrate judge to calculate interest, attorney’s fees, and costs.
The magistrate judge recommended a judgment of $45,424,081.20 as of April 2, 2021, plus daily interest, $119,818 in attorney’s fees, and $4,715.35 in costs. Neither side objected. The district court therefore reviewed the recommendation for clear error and found none.
Judge Daniels adopted the recommendation in its entirety except for adding $56,692.13 in additional attorney’s fees requested by Cimontubo. The court ordered the defendants to pay $45,424,081.20, prejudgment interest calculated at $8,919.02 per day from April 3, 2021, $176,510.13 in attorney’s fees, and $4,715.35 in costs, with post-judgment interest accruing at $8,919.02 per day.
The detailed version
- Cimontubo - Tubagens E Soldadura, LDA v. Petroleos De Venezuela, S.A. · No. 1:20-cv-05382
- George Daniels
- Nov. 29, 2021
Background
Cimontubo originally filed a motion for summary judgment instead of a complaint under New York Civil Practice Law and Rules § 3213. Cimontubo alleged that Petroleos De Venezuela, S.A. and PDVSA Petroleo, S.A. had defaulted on a promissory note and note agreement by failing to pay the outstanding principal and interest.
The district court had granted Cimontubo’s summary-judgment motion on March 4, 2021. It referred the matter to Magistrate Judge Gorenstein to conduct an inquest, meaning a proceeding to determine the amounts owed for attorney’s fees, costs, and interest. On November 1, 2021, the court denied the defendants’ motion for reconsideration of the March 4 decision.
Report and Recommendation
Magistrate Judge Gorenstein recommended entering judgment for Cimontubo in the amount of $45,424,081.20 as of April 2, 2021, with additional prejudgment interest accruing at $8,919.02 per day until judgment was entered. He also recommended $119,818 in attorney’s fees and $4,715.35 in costs.
The parties were told that failing to object on time would waive objections to the recommendation on appeal. No objections were filed. Because there were no objections, the district court reviewed the report for clear error—a standard under which the court reverses a finding only when it has a firm conviction that a mistake was made.
Ruling
The court found no error in Magistrate Judge Gorenstein’s analysis and adopted his recommended judgment regarding damages, attorney’s fees, and costs. The court adopted the report in its entirety except that it added $56,692.13 in additional attorney’s fees requested by Cimontubo. The defendants had not objected to that additional amount.
The final judgment ordered the defendants to pay Cimontubo: (1) $45,424,081.20, plus prejudgment interest calculated by the Clerk at $8,919.02 per day from April 3, 2021, through the date judgment was entered; (2) $176,510.13 in attorney’s fees; and (3) $4,715.35 in costs. The court also stated that post-judgment interest should accrue at $8,919.02 per day.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.